 | Gazprom is Still At It, Oh Yes They Are (or, "Gas Pressure") | The Oil Drum | It's not going to be cold enough in Siberia to... |  |
DrumBeat: March 5, 2007
Posted by Leanan on March 5, 2007 - 8:59am
Topic: Miscellaneous
A review of 2006 EIA Data; Expectations for Year Ahead
Oil prices set new records and the industry maintained a historically high level of activity in 2006. Energy agencies issued consensus forecasts that production would rise. Yet crude oil production was down and total liquids production was flat. The economists should be shaking in their boots.
New Evidence That Global Warming Fuels Stronger Atlantic Hurricanes
Atmospheric scientists have uncovered fresh evidence to support the hotly debated theory that global warming has contributed to the emergence of stronger hurricanes in the Atlantic Ocean.
US Coal-Fired Power Plant Plans up in Smoke?
The future of coal-fired power plants is seen so tied up by legal challenges from green groups, that it could slow, or even thwart, plans to use America's abundant coal supplies to generate its growing electricity needs.
High temperatures leave five million Chinese short of water
Nearly five million Chinese are unable to get enough drinking water because of a series of droughts caused by "abnormally high" temperatures, state media said Sunday.Crucially in a nation which still relies on agriculture for the majority of its people, the drought is also cutting off sufficient water supplies for 2.5 million livestock, the Xinhua news agency reported.
The economics of biofuels are debatable, but regardless of the economics, alternative fuel has one overriding appeal: If we make enough of the stuff, we can tell OPEC and characters like Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez to take their oil and stuff it.
Gasification may be key to U.S. ethanol
The government awarded $385 million in grants last week aimed at jumpstarting ethanol production from nontraditional sources like wood chips, switchgrass and citrus peels. What's surprising is that half of the six projects chosen will use a process first discovered almost a century ago to turn coal into a gas.
Why Iraq's new oil law won't last
It faces strong opposition, companies reluctant to get involved, and corruption – and may be contested as invalid.
Oil Innovations Pump New Life Into Old Wells
Within the last decade, technology advances have made it possible to unlock more oil from old fields, and, at the same time, higher oil prices have made it economical for companies to go after reserves that are harder to reach. With plenty of oil still left in familiar locations, forecasts that the world’s reserves are drying out have given way to predictions that more oil can be found than ever before.
Brazil Accused of Getting Biofuel with Slave Labor: Full Tanks at the expense of Empty Stomachs
One of the main concerns is with working conditions in farms. And this includes the use of indigenous labor which, particularly in sugarcane plantations, often faces conditions similar to slavery: low pay, no safety, long months away from their villages and homes.
New Zealand: Renewables don't need help to compete, energy users say
The Greenhouse Policy Coalition, whose members include Fonterra, New Zealand Steel, Solid Energy and Vector, commissioned a report from economic consultancy ACIL Tasman that found renewable generation is already competitive with or below the cost of coal and gas generation.
Nationalization Of Oil Sector In Venezuela: Action Or Reaction?
Some specialists argue that even if western firms will withdraw from Venezuela, this state will be able to find an alternative and, as such, will be open to Russian companies. Thus, since 2004 the Russian company LUKOIL plans to invest in the economy of the country about one billion USA dollars. Then from the end of 2006, the company started a joint drill with the national company of the country in one of the oil fields.
The ethanol industry has been linked with air and water pollution on an epic scale, along with deforestation in both the Amazon and Atlantic rainforests, as well as the wholesale destruction of Brazil's unique savannah land.
CO2 output from shipping twice as much as airlines
Carbon dioxide emissions from shipping are double those of aviation and increasing at an alarming rate which will have a serious impact on global warming, according to research by the industry and European academics.
Evangelical Angers Peers With Call for Action on Global Warming
Focus on the Family founder James C. Dobson and other conservative Christian leaders are calling for the National Association of Evangelicals to silence or fire an official who has urged evangelicals to take global warming seriously.
Germany wants 60-percent cut in CO2 by 2050
Global warming is human rights issue: Nobel nominee
How hot is it? So hot that Inuit people around the Arctic Circle are using air conditioners for the first time. And running out of the hard-packed snow they need to build igloos. And falling through melting ice when they hunt.
The question now is what to do about global warming. This is a political problem more than a scientific one. The solutions (if we can agree on any) will require political will and imagination -- and also pain. That was my only reservation about the Oscar night celebration of Al Gore's leadership on this issue. The gowns and black ties and the celebrity back-slapping made it look like dealing with global warming will be fun, a walk down the red carpet. But it's more likely to be about catastrophe and how to share the pain.
Dr. Taury Smith, New York State Museum geologist, will discuss the past, present and future of oil production, the concept of peak oil and the issues surrounding this controversial topic in "Peak Oil: The End of Life as We Know It?" at noon Thursday in the Carole F. Huxley Theater of the state Museum. Admission is free.
Britain to Become German Energy Vassal
Knowingly or not, Britain’s North Sea geologists may have deceived their nation. Britain is no longer energy self-sufficient and, contrary to forecasts and models, oil and gas production has dropped precipitously.Germany has a strategy to take good care of British energy security. But should Britons be concerned about placing too much reliance upon their former enemy?
Energy Sector at Nicaragua-Venezuela Joint Commission
This meeting, to whose closing ceremony on Tuesday will be attended by Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez, means to formalize several accords still implemented, the minister told Prensa Latina.Rapaccioli recalled that as part of those agreements, Nicaragua has already received 32 electricity generating plants from Venezuela, eight of them already producing 15 megawatts to the national electric power system.
Feds say 'no' to off-road fuel relief; Truckers 'on their own'
The federal Conservative government won't find a way to allow Ontario truckers to fill up temporarily with off-road diesel until the fuel supply disruption in that province settles.At a press conference in Victoria following a meeting of the country’s energy ministers, federal minister of Natural Resources Gary Lunn said Ottawa would not grant the Ontario Trucking Association's request of making available non-ULSD fuel (still used in off-road and rail) to the highway truckers in Ontario, which has been plagued with a province-wide fuel shortage since the middle of February.
Gas price cap could spark a shortage, MLA says
Surrey-White Rock MLA Gordon Hogg says a private member’s bill calling for B.C. to regulate gas prices could backfire on drivers and cause a province-wide fuel shortage.
Premier says China to close dirty steel mills in conservation drive
: China will close its dirtiest steel mills as it steps up efforts to rein in surging energy use and clean up environmental damage caused by its economic boom, Premier Wen Jiabao said Monday."We will take strong measures to save energy, lower energy consumption, protect the environment" and use limited farmland more effectively, the premier said.
What would peace in the Middle East mean for the oil price?
The international conference convened in Baghdad for March 10 represents an important first step to finding a lasting solution to the chaos of Iraq since the US invasion four years ago. But if the Middle East can summon the political will to deal with this situation will this not cause a fall in the oil price?
Hi everyone,
I'm just a lay-person when it comes to this stuff. But the information, and discussion on this website is, I believe, invaluable.
In the end, this is a search for truth and honesty, from an industry that is conspicuously, and more often than not intentionally lacking in both.
So my greatest concern right now isn't so much the "if/when", but rather the message.
I agree completely with the tone of Robert Rapiers comments in the last drumbeat.
What do "we" do on this site, if those of us who are calling for a peak right now, (or already past), face a new peak (in world, or Saudi) production in, say, 2008 when demand picks up again?
How do we address the people that would call us crackpots or chicken-littles?
Personally, I think we must shy away from any pronouncements unless it's already in the rear-view. Put trumpet loudly what the data shows us for the future *barring any new data* or massive technological advancements.
Maybe we should be exploring exactly what those advancements might be, and hnow they might affect what we're trying to warn people about.
We are in this together.. if we, the people who are the most acutely aware of this problem, can't collaborate and show a united, and fact-based approach, then there is no hope for us to affect change anywhere in the "real".
Disagree. We will never have a united front until peak oil is years in the rear view mirror. By then, it may be too late to do anything about it.
We have competing theories now. Eventually, we will know which one is right. That is how it should be, IMO.
I wouldn't worry about being considered crackpots. We already have a lot more prominent peak oilers who are more extreme than Westexas or Stuart will ever be.
Your comments remind me of the scientists who wanted Stephen Jay Gould to shut up about punctuated equilibrium. They argued that it was better to present a united front against the creationists "just for now." Um, no. That's not how science works.
I'm not saying we should all agree, not at all... open debate and conjecture and argument is how truth is discovered. I just think, and I think RR would agree, that there isn't much discussion about what might cause oil production to *rise*. And how *we* as the unofficial "peakist community" would address that.
It would be valid to go through all the possibilities, and revisit them on a regular basis. And not simply as an exercise to discredit anything that might go against peak-oil-now.
Hey Chrisale,
Here is my letter to my congressman, which I will edit and send to my senators. Maybe if we want to do something we should try to force the Congress to ask one question of our friends the Saudis. It seems like any easy question from my point of view. Editorial comments accepted.
---------------------
Dear Mike,
I do not write too much, but I am worried about the state of the world and frankly my investments at home. I have thought about the reasons for my anxiety and I have come to the conclusion that you can help. The source of continued growth and expansion in the world economies is the effective use of energy. Energy allows countries to reduce human suffering and elevate freedom. With this thought in mind, we urge you to ask President Bush to implore his friend and ally Saudi Arabia to “open the books” on the oil reserves to outside scrutiny. The audit of energy resources will allow me and many others to plan for the future and allow me to get back to work to generate revenue for the Treasury.
If you would like my recommendations for the blue ribbon panel to conduct this review, please do not hesitate to call, or better yet speak to Roscoe Bartlett R-MD.
Your Constituent,
Greg Hunter
ghunter@mannus.com
Greg,
Two, maybe three questions:
1. Do you have a net worth more than $10 million?
2. How much money have you contributed to said politician?
3. If you haven't sent ALOT of money why are you bothering to write your Congressman?
If the answer to #3 is "I dispatched some hookers along with the note I sent . . ." then I understand you may not be able to disclose your lobbying strategy here on a public internet forum.
=)
Disagree. We will never have a united front until peak oil is years in the rear view mirror. By then, it may be too late to do anything about it.
I tend to agree with this. In a sense it is already too late, and the actual ‘peak’ may be in the past, not that that matters much.
The difficulty is that it is a systemic problem (compare with smoking, asbestos in buildings, frogs dying, forests being decimated, teen drugging, car accidents, etc. though all those are also embedded in particular landscapes, societies, etc.) and the change required is a type II change, that is a ‘revolution’, a change in basic principles, rather than ‘tweaking,' ‘fixing’, ‘adjusting’ and so on.
Peak oilers, eco-types, seers and savants, your modest vegetarian bicycle riders, up-to-scratch scientists, even your mad doomers, don’t have an agenda they can agree on, which is understandable as the problem is so overwhelming, bringing so many parameters and ‘habits’ on board.
Second, and more importantly, they have no (or little) political power, and face opposition, which is determined, not to ignore the problem (they know all about it) but to handle it in their own way. They don’t want any interference, and hold the upper hand. So the scene is not ‘in getting the news out’ or ‘making ppl aware’ (say, though that might be a first step of some kind) but in gaining power to force the adoption of one or the other ‘solutions’, more properly, reactions. And that is a tough call.
Reason, scientific fact, understanding, have all gone down the river long ago.
Argh the river dried up. I forgot!
Some people who post here feel they are part of a community, or feel a responsibility towards creating credible policies. Reasonable people, with reasonable goals.
Others of us don't care about credibility in this sense at all. It was blindingly clear ca 1977 what the future would look like in terms of oil, and whether that future was in 10 years or 30 years wasn't exactly the important point - the important point was to prepare.
If you live in America, look around and tell me what you see in the way of preparation for peak oil since 1977. So much for credible policies following reasonable discussion.
When peak oil arrives, and in my view, it has, it likely won't lead to Americans suddenly questioning how they have lived for the last 30 years. But it will force them to change how they live, whether they desire it or not.
One of the big background questions here is, how will America deal with reality? TOD is pretty America-centric, which allows for a fine glimpse into something a lot of non-Americans just can't grasp - why Americans have built an entire infrastructure over the last couple of generations which doesn't allow people to walk, for example, is something Germans just can't comprehend.
At this point, whether peak is now or in 3-5 years (a solid consensus estimate by most reasonable measures) really doesn't matter that much to America's immediate future.
One OECD country, a very statist one, - France -, following the legacy of De Gaulle, did take it to heart and tried to anticipate and build a ‘communal’ - country, nation, region, all people together - solution, or action, or re-action, and, as we know, go for ‘nukulear’ run by the State.
Whether this is good or bad I leave up to others.
Of course, France’s nuclear push predates the early 1970’s oil shocks.
First nuclear plant which produced electricity, USSR, 1954.
France: 1963, at Chinon. (afaik)
So history has a long arm...
Good points expat -
I read and sometimes post comments to TOD because I just happened to stumble upon the immediacy of peak oil (I’m a geologist so I knew the concept well but truthfully hadn’t paid much attention to its implications) when I was surfing around the internet after a particularly bad week (personally) in these United States. The internet, TOD and Kunstler in particular, contained observations and opinions from people who actually had the perception to realize and articulate that something was (is) fundamentally wrong out there with our way of life. I had this building feeling that if you were a person who didn’t buy into this hyperconsumer lifestyle then you were just going to get rolled by those who have been consumed by it… I simply was not encountering any engagement on this feeling with any other people I talked with – just would get the classic “eyes glaze over, 1000 yd. stare, quick change the subject this is boring me” response. My girlfriend has been amazing because she does see what first brought me to TOD and agrees that we’re in trouble but I think she’s a bit more optimistic than me and thinks that things could get bad for a spell but ultimately we’ll all pull together… I argue with her that I don’t think human nature (genetics) bode well for that kind of happy thinking… but we’re still both works in progress – and we are struggling to prepare, as you suggest…
Thought I’d relate this to you because I think your observation about TOD contributors feeling as though they’re “part of a community” really is what has been most important to me. The reinforcement of these ideas has actually spurred me on to prepare for this when everyday influences and encounters try to suggest the exact opposite (“move along – nothing to see here”, bread & circuses etc.). Seeing items other people have written and saying to myself “damn, that sounds EXACTLY like what I think…” has been very helpful when, in my every day life and encounters, I feel that way very, very rarely…
yup
Chrisale, thanks for the great post. But I must disagree with you when it comes to making pronouncements about peak oil. Suppose Matt Simmons had this same attitude concerning his prediction that Saudi oil production is nearing its twilight? Suppose he had been concerned about being called "Chicken Little?"
At any rate, as I have stated time and time again, the exact month that production peaks is not important. What is important is the current plateau that we now find ourselves on. We have been on that plateau for about two years. That IS important. During that two years every nation tried to ramp up production. Every old field in every nation is now being milked for all its worth but we still remain on the plateau.
We have been talking about these "massive technological advancements" as you put it for almost thirty years. Catton, in 1980, called them superstraws. They suck the oil out a lot faster but do not put more oil in the ground. What Saudi Arabia and other nations now do with horizontal christmas tree wells Texas did years ago by sinking a vertical well every few feet. At any rate, all this "new technology" have already done its thing, getting us to where they are. We have already witnessed their contribution.
As for affecting change. You are dreaming. The world will change when events force change, not when people make logical arguments that change is needed. Reason is a pitifully impotent tool when it comes to changing people's behavior.
Ron Patterson
I strongly suspect that nothing we do will have any material impact on public policy, which is why I have increasingly described the 2005/2010 debate as roughly akin to a couple of engineers debating how long it will take for the Titanic to sink.
IMO, it is much later than most of us think, and I think that most Americans have two choices: (1) Dramatically reduce your consumption now, while you can do it voluntarily, or (2) You will be forced to do it later, much like the forced conservation we have seen in Africa.
I do think that the New York Times article ("Oil Innovations Pump New Life Into Old Wells") is another example of the "Iron Triangle" striking back (see explanation at the end).
I suspect that the recent flood of attacks on the near term Peak Oil position and on Peak Oil in general have a lot to do with the release of the EIA data showing a continued decline for all of 2006, as predicted by the HL models, in world and Saudi crude oil production--while oil prices have consistently been about two-thirds higher than in the 20 months prior to 5/05.
Again, all I can advise people to do is to ELP, i.e., "Cut they spending and get thee to the non-discretionary side of the economy."
Iron Triangle:
I suspect the triangle is getting more sides. Any industry that has been benefiting from cheap transportation is now desperately trying to erase the writing on the wall. Or at the very least making sure that someone else is first in line to be screwed.
WT,
Your triangle makes even more sense if you re-phrase #2: MSM that sells consumers to #1. If the consumer even thinks that suburban MacMansion or GM Suburbans might be a poor investment, advertising revenues will shrink, and our celebrity 'news' people might have to find real jobs. The extent to which they stifle debate is telling. Just look at the post below of the article from today's NYT. Peak Oilers are confined to the lunatic fringe and it is obvious that petroleum supplies are limitless.
That NYT article was placed on the front page of today's Providence (RI) Journal and featured the sub-headline "With higher prices in effect, oil producers find that old fields may be the best fields". Yeah, just gotta love those old fields, I'm sure we can count on them to meet the world's future demand growth...unbelievable.
The PROJO is owned by Belo Inc., based in Dallas, TX. Iron Triangle in action IMHO; after reading this tripe I finally convinced my wife to drop our subscription to this rag. Does anyone know if the Dallas Morning News has the NYT article up on the front page?
The thing I found most preposterous in the article was this gem: "CERA....estimated that the total base of recoverable oil was 4.8 trillion barrels. That higher estimate - which CERA says will probably grow...."
4.8 trillion and growing, that's all you need to know folks. Nothing to see here, business as usual - party on!
Loomis: I am sure you are aware of this, but it is not just the subject of oil depletion. Literally ANY subject that one takes an interest in and starts to research leads to the realization that the MSM is not stating the truth (whether intentional or accidental). Peak oil is not being treated differently by the MSM (including the NYT) than any other subject.People forget that the Times was a major cheerleader for the spooky WMD that would turn America into a smoldering cauldron.
A further note on, I think, the same track
Those who were wrong about WMD, wrong about invading Iraq, really wrong about everything, suffer no consequences, keep their sinecures, get ink and airtime. Those who are and have been right about WMD, this foolish war, NAFTA, whatever, those who are right are still consigned to outer darkness.
Being right about peak oil is not going to help anyone. Being wrong about peak oil or oil prices will never hurt CERA.
One small exception to the above; Barack Obama was at least partially right about Iraq and was very wise to be right very very quietly.
Of course the media distort the truth -- the US media serve only the profit motive (this is how we've set it up), the truth is beside the point isn't it?
Amen. Pollution, over fishing, over logging, etc. Anything that threatens large businesses will be attacked by them tooth and nail.
This was an interesting article. Without citing proof they kept raising the possible reserves. Starting with an already high estimate of 250 billion barrels in Saudi Arabia Mr. Saleri confides that the real amount is nearly three times that much and he "wouldn't be surprised" if the actual number turned out to be 1 trillion barrels. You'd think that after all these years they'd have a better handle on this.
The NY Times is so important that a good letter to the editor is called for, IMO, rebutting the main arguments. I'm not qualified to write it. I hope someone will.
It really is the most mendacious piece in the MSM I've seen in quite awhile, and it just reinforces the belief, expressed by Noisette, Leanan, et al., up post that we will not do anything until its too late.
IMO peak oil is similar to the Christian idea of the second coming of Christ, only with a lot more evidence. Christianity has divided itself over and over again and yet has as much or more influence than ever. It has predicted the second coming for over 2000 years and been wrong for 2000 years with little, if any, reduction in its credibility. Less than 5 percent of Americans in one poll I saw think than an atheist, which I am, should be President of the United States. Most Americans call themselves Christians. Being wrong or even consistently wrong has no effect on your credibility in the average person's thinking. People believe what they want to believe largely irregardless of the facts.
I have to rebut this: peak oil is nothing like, and has nothing to do with, christian (or jewish) apocalypticism.
1. "apocalypse" means revelation or vision. The Hebrew writers based their writings on dreams and visions, either creative or mushroom- or epilepsy-induced. These visions were spawned not by studying data, but by the desperate state of Israel under the Roman occupation and after the destruction of the temple. Peak oilists are scientists doing what scientists have always tried to do: make forecasts based on data.
2. Some of these Hebraic-Christian visions concerned a new Kingdom of God on the earth, while others imagined an "end times" scenario when the earth would be utterly destroyed. Peak oil does not imagine either a new kingdom or "the end of the world." The world will persist, even, sadly, amidst the worst-case scenario--die-off. People unfortunately use the phrase "the end of the world as we know it," and denialists leap on the first five words of that phrase and ignore the last four. I think we should just stop using it altogether.
3. The coming of a Messiah is part & parcel of the ancient apocalyptic visions. Peak oil expresses the exact opposite idea: there are no "saviors," no messiahs.
In fact, the true apocalyptic visionaries are the cornucopians, who imagine with messianic fervor the Coming of the New Oil from Old Wells: See today's above-the-fold headline in the NYT.
There is no Second Coming for oil. Peak oil is not an apocalyptic idea.
Peak oil is very much an apocalyptic concept. The ancient prophets looked at the condition of society as they saw it and synthesized predictions and warnings of dire consequences if people didn't change their ways. Due to the political situation they found themselves in they used symbolism and code words which protected them from the Romans while communicating with those who understood the hidden meanings. Hubbert looked at his world and synthesized predictions from them along with suggestions on how America could change its ways in order to insure a continuance of the American Dream. Many posters to this site including myself also make predictions of dire consequences if we don't change our ways and offer suggestions on the straight and narrow path to follow.
You've misunderstood everything I've said: the concept of the coming messiah IS THE CENTRAL concept of apocalypticism.
Peak oil offers no messiah. The equation of peak oil with apocalypticism is a perfect example of what Richard Dawkins calls "bad poetic science."
Apocalypse is just another word for revelation or prophecy. Instead of a divine individual many of us look to the heavens and all the solar energy continually bathing Earth as our savior. We see the brimstone laden coal and oil as underworld demons which we need to be saved from. There may actually be among us those who long for a single inventor who will provide the perfect answer to our energy woes (the zero-point energy believers for instance). The solution to the peak oil challenge lies within our souls. As individuals it means seeing the hollowness of what Madison Avenue places before us as solutions to our pursuit of happiness. It means including all the externalities into the calculus of business. It means calling on our governments to change a few rules of the game to prevent using the cheapest energy products in favor of the most sustainable and equitable alternatives. It means focusing on economic development which improve the quality of life for all over pure economic growth which brings more stuff to the rich.
Human beings suffer bounded rationality. They have a limited ability to understand their world, and a pretty spotty record in preparing for their future.
But at the same time we have no shortage of fears, monsters in the closet. Each of these do attract a following: economic collapse, superquakes, pandemics, peak oil ...
I think the thing to live with is that while each of these is a real risk, we experience very emotional responses to them. We feel the fear more than we know the mathematical risk. This November '06 Time Magazine article hit all the high points on that.
So if you focus on one thing, one fear, or one outcome in all that ... you might be a "crackpot or chicken-little."
If you take the more reasonable course that life has risk, but that there are moderate steps we can make to safe and happy life ... you might be sane.
A little voice in my head occasionally says, in regards to peak oil (and economic collapse and global warming, "These things are just monsters in the closet. They're not real. It's your caveman instincts overpowering your logic".
One of the reasons I read TOD and other sources is that I want to convince myselft that these things truly are just monsters in the closet. So far logic hasn't allowed me to dismiss my concerns.
But instinct has a purpose. Cavemen and Cavewomen had to be careful when approaching dark, unfamiliar caves to avoid being attacked by a predator. This carries over to the monster in the closet concerns each of us had as kids.
In the same light, being concerned about Peak Oil, financial collapse, global warming and so on is not a useless exercise. I've done things to "hedge my bets" in the event of financial collapse and resource scarcity. But I think the biggest benefit of being "aware" is the fact that I won't be surprised by volitility in the future.
Tom A-B
For what it's worth, I no longer read Peak Oil news daily. I've satisfied myself that I understand the issues, made my moderate preparations, and all that remains is for the shoes (little ones or big ones) to drop.
The ten trillion dollar question (when is PO?) will resolve itself in its own time.
Odo,
For what it's worth, I too have stopped reading TOD and EB on a daily basis. It's just too depressing.
I try to go on with "normal" life.
However, everything is colored by this huge "paradigm shift", by my awareness of the PO Possibility.
What I mean by "paradigm shift" is similar to the one undergone by the more educated in society when they began to understand that the Sun does not revolve around the Earth or that Evolution is the way "we" came to be what we are rather than according to the fairy tale story in the Bible. These kinds of understandings change everything and yet they change nothing.
So when the happy-times CERA crowd or the happy New-York Times cornucopians step out on to the church steps to proclaim that the oil-bulging Earth remains the center of the Universe and the Singularity is soon upon us; all I can do is mutter in my heart, "Nonetheless it (Hubbert's curve) moves".
The whole question of the near term, medium term and long term peak really revolves around Saudi Arabia, and in effect, the Ghawar Field.
I strongly advise everyone to read the series of posts that Down Under and others made on Saudi Arabia yesterday on the 3/4/07 Drumbeat, up near the top.
The continuing irony of all the attacks on the HL method is that world and Saudi crude production are both declining, as predicted by the HL models.
And the hard, cold fact is that world oil prices have been bid up to a level about two-thirds higher than in the 20 months prior to 5/05, and the inflection point on this price increase was May, 2005.
Has the US--so far--been well supplied with petroleum products? Yes.
That has not been true for regions like Africa, which have faced forced conservation, because they could not afford to buy petroleum, in effect, because richer nations outbid them. But forced conservation is moving up the food chain.
Mmmmmm. . . I think anybody who truly recognizes the ramifications this will have on each of us as individuals simply does not care about being viewed as a "crackpot."
Mmmmmm. . . I think anybody who truly recognizes the ramifications this will have on each of us as individuals simply does not care about being viewed as a "crackpot."
News From Saudi
As I have stated before I have a (friend) in Saudi Arabia. That is all I will say about the relationship because I wish to keep his identity anonymous. At any rate I emailed him and asked him if he had heard any rumors about Saudi oil production. Getting such information out of him in the past has been difficult because he is in denial about peak oil himself and does not wish to talk about it. And he is in electronics and does not work with production engineers.
He has two small children, ages 8 and 5 and wishes to believe that their future is bright, so I really cannot blame him, or for that matter press him too hard. I have tried to clue him in about peak oil in the past but found it was like talking to a wall. He simply refused to hear a word I was saying. He lives in Ras Tanura, or RT as he calls it. Anyway, here is part of his reply.
Saudi schools for expats only go through the ninth grade, which is why he added the part about boarding school. He sent two other children, by a former wife, to boarding school and swears he will never do that again. But I thought the part about the petrochemical plant very interesting. My take on it is, the Saudis are divesting their resources and paying lower salaries for imported workers.
Now I haven’t a clue as to what a petrochemical plant produces. Perhaps Robert or someone else in the business can give us a clue here. But even if Saudi is in decline they will have some oil production for decades to come. Perhaps they are trying to increase the profit margins on the oil they produce. Plus they really have nothing else to sell to the world other than oil products so a petrochemical plant that manufactures (whatever) would seem to be the perfect choice if they wish to diversify.
Ron Patterson